Salman, “I beg to differ with this myopic and ill informed analysis… David's understanding of Islam, its history and the policies of Hizb ut Tahrir are very superficial.” Well, you’re welcome to refute my statements with evidence and sources. This would, I think, be more useful than simply claiming that I’m shamefully ignorant and leaving it at that. You’ll notice that throughout this thread (and others), I’ve quoted the exact words of influential believers with links and sources for verification; if those reported views are “myopic and ill-informed” (and perhaps they are), those views are nonetheless shared by many of Islam’s adherents and many of your associates. It therefore seems a tad evasive to blame me for the stated ambitions of other people, many of whom your own organisation invokes. “Firstly, no society can allow open-ended personal choice…” Indeed, all choices and freedoms are conditional, as is everything else in human life, apparently. But you’re misrepresenting my earlier statement to create a false dichotomy. The point I’d hoped to make is that secular democracies are “open-ended” in that they are inherently susceptible to change, with varying degrees of discomfort, rather than driven by (and limited by) a single pre-determined objective, which is the general theme of Communist and theocratic polities. And the notion of ‘evolution’ in this sense is rather important. One of the virtues of the democratic ideal is that it has a pragmatic and realistic aspect and generally does not presume to be “perfect” or the last word in human society. It is not in itself a terminus; it is merely a means of travel. The testing of ideas is a key function of democracy; indeed this testing is what distinguishes democracy from mere majority rule. And the structural features of democracy itself are among the ideas that are tested. (How often and how well this testing happens is, of course, another matter.) But no serious person would suggest any of the current forms of democracy are perfect, or even close to perfect. And that is a defining merit of the system. It is open to dissent, adaptation and, hopefully, improvement, based on new ideas and new information. Can the same be said of a theocracy with pretensions to divine “perfection”? “The ‘trade off’ of allowing recognition of the existence of a Creator but preventing such conviction from the political realm is not enlightenment but rather a compromise between two diametrically opposed views-atheism and Christianity. This only shows a lack of conviction on behalf of both parties to rationally convince the other of the correctness of its thought.” Hmm. If not by means of evidence and rational discussion, how, I wonder, do you propose to incorporate the alleged preferences of a hypothetical being into democratic debate? And, again, you're presenting a false dichotomy. Secular democracy is not inherently atheistic, but rather conditional and pluralistic. It is indeed a compromise of sorts, but it is one which allows differing and often contradictory faiths to coexist reasonably well most of the time. Without the ‘buffer’ of secular proprieties, whereby policy arguments are usually framed in rational and evidential terms, it seems very likely that rival faiths would vie for dominance in the political realm unhindered by proof or logic. Which would hardly be a recipe for tolerance, equity or enlightenment. For instance, the Islamic concept of the legally subordinate non-Muslim dhimma indicates how religious dominance actually works in practice. If a more contemporary illustration is required, take a look at this charming example. Note how the Indonesian Muslims who share your dream of a righteous Caliphate also insist: “Indonesia [will] be the foundation of a Southeast Asian Caliphate that will launch jihad against other nations such as Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Australia and Papua New Guinea until they have all submitted to Islam." Naturally, in order to achieve this glorious aim, “all pockets of resistance must be subdued.” And, naturally enough, “If the [unbelievers] reject [the call to Islam], then they are invited to submit to the ruling of the Islamic State by paying the jizya tax. If they reject that, then war must be waged against them in order to remove any obstacle in the way of implementing the Islamic ruling system upon them." Now doesn't this sound familiar? And is this what you mean by "uniting humanity on the basis of its humanity"? “The Caliphate… [took] humanity out of the ancient world of superstition and into the modern world of empirical investigation and rational scrutiny… The implementation of [Islamic economic] policies led to an unprecedented distribution of wealth such that Africa was known as the ‘breadbasket’ of the world…” Well, given the supernatural aspects of Hizb ideology, including the allegedly divine causation of earthquakes, one can only wonder where that “rational scrutiny” has gone. Since your organisation is premised on an unverifiable supposition – the alleged preferences of a hypothetical being - empirical investigation doesn’t exactly seem a priority or a guiding influence. Incidentally, Africa’s notional status as “breadbasket of the world” was largely due to influence of British imperialists, led by the infamous Cecil Rhodes. Curiously, since the decline of Western colonial influence, much of that “breadbasket” has reverted to the tribal conflicts and economic collapse that originally made it a target for exploitation. Nor can one ignore the contemporary role of Islamist movements in the furthering of bloodshed, slavery, forced conversion, mass displacement and general destitution. 11 of Nigeria’s 36 states are now ruled by Islamic Sharia. Consequently, the rights of women and non-Muslims have all but been extinguished and a Saudi-funded jihad has resulted in thousands of Christians and other non-Muslims being killed since 1999. However, this phenomenon is most notable in Sudan, where Sharia has been imposed since 1983 and a genocidal jihad has subsequently raged for two decades. Is this, then, another example of "uniting humanity on the basis of its humanity"? “David should consider why the ruling elites of democratic states felt compelled to create two-chamber ruling structures where an elected chamber would be effectively restricted in political decision making by an unelected chamber of elites.” And perhaps you should consider how the two-chamber system you mention was not in fact the result of compulsion or any single design, but rather evolved over centuries, largely to inhibit the power of monarchs and religious fanatics. It is, in large part, the piecemeal result of several attempts to limit the power of the state over individuals. And surely fanaticism and the power of the state are at the heart of this discussion? Whatever the historical virtues of the Caliphate (and whatever the charms of Islamic architecture), there is still the question of contemporary relevance and the matter of what actually works today. What served a specific purpose centuries ago may not serve that same purpose (or any purpose) now. Many of the structural features of the Caliphate – including the aforementioned dhimmi status of non-Muslims - would no longer be viewed as tolerable, or as a credible trade-off. Sentimentalising the past to the extent you do – and filtering history to suit some received mythology – is not a persuasive argument, or a basis for credibility. How will this rosy scenario fit into the twenty-first century? By what means should this scenario be brought about? And, again, at whose expense? “In the globalised world of the 21st century, Islam has the ability to organise human relationships in a manner than unites humanity on the basis of its humanity as opposed to placing her into competition for resources through nationalistic and ethnic rivalries. Thus far secularism has been unable to achieve stability or prosperity for humanity and is unlikely to ever do so.” Heh. Well, to the best of my knowledge, all empires have been built on unsavoury foundations. And that includes the fabled Caliphate. I could, of course, list the equally unflattering history of Islamic conquest beginning with Mohammed himself and spanning half the planet and more than a thousand years. If time permits, I could recount how Islam was spread - violently - from southern France and Austria to Nigeria, the Phillipines and New Guinea. I could mention the plundering raids into Europe, Georgia and Russia, the sacking of churches and the abduction of Christian men and women – raids which were a primary cause of the abominable Crusades, from which no-one emerged virtuous or unstained. I could likewise mention the millions of African men who were castrated and marched overland, until the minority that survived were sold as infidels in the slave markets of Jeddah, Constantinople and Damascus. I could mention the Islamic invasions of Ethiopia and Algeria, or the invasion of Sudan in 1275 by Egypt’s Muslim Mamluks. Or, more recently, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, where black slaves were traded for camels or given as wedding gifts. And, again, I could ask if this is what you mean by "uniting humanity on the basis of its humanity." But no. That wouldn’t do, would it? I’m guessing we should simply ignore the history of Islam’s own expansive “competition for resources” and ignore Islam’s own remarkable history of “ethnic rivalries”, if only to further your strangely acausal dream. Still, I do wonder if the Caliphate, over which you swoon so readily, could have arisen or survived without the slave markets of Jeddah and Constantinople, and without the military conquest and extortion of rival polities. Either way, when it comes to the history of empire, no-one’s hands are particularly clean. And pretending otherwise is simply dishonest. Whether or not secular democracy will ultimately bring prosperity to the entire planet is a rather daunting question, and one that is obviously open to debate. But the stifled social and economic model advanced by Hizb ut-Tahrir is much less plausible as a means of achieving peace or material advancement, whether locally or globally. And your tendency to santise history (and to omit its unflattering features) hardly seems a recipe for a brave new tomorrow.